Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Wednesday April 06, 2011 @10:27AM
from the screens-are-screens dept.

An anonymous reader writes "An iPad is just another TV set, and can be viewed just like an extra outlet. These are the words Cablevision (NYSE: CVC) has thrown toward content providers as demand for consumer viewing keeps shifting to more available sources like Roku, Apple TV, and the iPad, over providers like Netflix, and Hulu, and now Cable TV. Programmers are throwing down the gauntlet as more devices are able to stream video from a variety of providers."

I moved last fall and decided to try going without cable or satellite. Between Hulu and Netflix I really haven't missed cable other then the occasional sporting event. When are content providers going to get it? I don't want to pay for 110 channels I never watch.

You'd think they would look at the death throes of the newspaper guys, and magazines, and Blockbuster et al, and record stores, and etc etc, and change their ways. But they won't.

I think they still believe that they can legislate their own existence. So far they have done an admirable (though not laudable) job. Media producers like mass market media because it helps them push their garbage, and mass market media likes media producers with garbage to push because it's easy to sell. As long as MPAA and RIAA members continue to be appointed to key positions in government (which happened under the prior administration and continues to happen under this administration) the situation will

To a pull system from a push content system. A push system is defined as something like television, where everything is pushed with a schedule at timed intervals. A pull content gives you a choice, instead of waiting and being forced to stay for a show.

For example, even on legal sites, you choose when and what to watch, availability withstanding.

DVR is a stopgap in that direction. Netflix, Hulu and Youtube are currently going in the right direction.

To a pull system from a push content system. A push system is defined as something like television, where everything is pushed with a schedule at timed intervals. A pull content gives you a choice, instead of waiting and being forced to stay for a show.

For example, even on legal sites, you choose when and what to watch, availability withstanding.

DVR is a stopgap in that direction. Netflix, Hulu and Youtube are currently going in the right direction.

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree with you), do you think the general public can handle being able to choose their programming? Currently, I think a lot of people are used to watching what is fed to them by the networks.

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree with you), do you think the general public can handle being able to choose their programming? Currently, I think a lot of people are used to watching what is fed to them by the networks.

Remember that too much choice paradoxically makes people unhappy!

Your TV (computer) could choose for you, based on what you say you like, what your social-network-friends like, what's popular, what the network recommends, etc.

Playing devil's advocate (even though I agree with you), do you think the general public can handle being able to choose their programming? Currently, I think a lot of people are used to watching what is fed to them by the networks.

I think that constantly treating them like they can't, for the last few generations, has not only trained them to be the way they are now but also made everyone believe that this is normal. This is true for things a lot more important than TV. Few people have the individuality

I have to agree with you. I tried to get rid of our cable to save $150/mo. It worked well for me and made me realize how little TV I watch. I mostly download the shows I like. The problem is I'm a highly technical person and spend a lot of time looking things (like TV shows and Movies) up for reviews and release dates and such. My wife on the other hand is the complete opposite. She'll watch a show I've downloaded and she'll say it was great, but she has no motivation to find her own stuff. When we got rid of the cable she just about went crazy because one of the people she works with would mention an episode of House, Bones, or talk about the next great show that's coming out this fall. I told her just to go download it, but she "couldn't figure it out" and wanted me to do it. There are only so many hours in the day, I have a lot of hobbies and not enough time for the things I want to do, let alone sit around looking for shows for her. So I broke down and had the cable hooked back up.

We just bought a new TV that came with Netflix, which we just got here in Canada and it's awesome. I can afford to pay the $8/mo they're asking and love the fact it's like downloading in that I can watch them when I want. I live on the east coast so most of what we watch we have to stay up until midnight to catch. That just doesn't work for me. I'd pay up to what we pay for our current cable if they had all the recent shows so I could make my wife happy and drop the cable in one felled swoop. We'll see what happens with the national usage based billing issue that seems to have sprung up right after Netflix came to town.

I'd say you haven't thought this through, or you wouldn't have raised the point at all (and you should have used a more honest term like "the unwashed masses" instead of hiding your elitist and condescending view of people behind the "general public" label).

Of course people can handle this - they have always been able to do so. Just look at who is being dragged kicking/screaming into the future and who is doing the dragging. Hint: The "general public" are doing the dragging. Follow the sound of kicking

I'd say you haven't thought this through, or you wouldn't have raised the point at all (and you should have used a more honest term like "the unwashed masses" instead of hiding your elitist and condescending view of people behind the "general public" label).

Unfortunately the "unwashed masses" exist and they exist in numbers. As proof I submit the fact that marketing and PR are used because they work and are extremely successful at steering a discussion away from the actual merits of a thing. There is noth

If any of the TV providers who could reach me would offer an exclusively 'on demand' service I would probably prefer that over Hulu or torrents or the other current options. As it stands, in order to get access to 'on demand' service I have to also purchase a TV package filled with content I don't want. I care only for HD but I have to buy non-HD content to get to the HD 'add on'. If I wanted only HBO I can't get just that, I have to buy the basic package + the extended package, then I can get to H

On the one hand, I like the variety and time-independence of modern media consumption methods (Netflix, Hulu, TPB), but on the other hand I feel sometimes I'm missing out on a shared cultural experience with respect to commercials. On the gripping hand, my only complaint is not seeing commercials.

Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) says it's not worth it. Ads are creative content (dare I even say "art") like everything else - they just have a specific purpose. What you're really bothered about is the fact that ads are forced upon you rather than chosen by you. You are therefore more painfully aware of the crappy 90%, since you can't control whether or not to watch them. Losing ads completely reduces the opportunity for the awesome 10% to be experienced, reducing the overall opportunity fo

Ads are a sales pitch and as such are driven predominantly by crass and callous motives and in the general case should not be called "creative".

This is the aspect of advertising that people find objectionable. They are disrespectful on a fundemental level that will always be in conflict with any means to grade them and filter out the most objectionable material. The general lack of consideration given by advertisers will always drive people to find ways t

You might be surprised how many conversations at the proverbial water cooler center on some new television ad campaign. Of course, it's often easy to waylay those into more interesting topics, such as honey badgers [youtube.com].

Between Hulu and Netflix I really haven't missed cable other then the occasional sporting event.

For sporting events I pretty much only watch the Super Bowl, and that comes OTA. My wife misses a couple of shows, but they usually will show up on Netfix eventually. I'm really happy with my Netfix streaming Blu-Ray player & my Aspire Revo with USB TV tuners. If MS gets hardware acceleration working on Silverlight, I won't even need to use the Blu-Ray player much anymore. I must say though, Hulu has always been a disappointment to me. Lots of clips make it annoying to find an actual episode; I don't ev

Exactly. And that's not counting the pirate signals that broadcast things like major cable news stations that aren't on NetFlix or Hulu.

We also gave up satellite several years back when I was between jobs and having to work a lot of contract. It was an extra $60/month we just couldn't afford. Plus a lot of the channels that caused me to subscribed have been dumbed down to the point of not even being the original programs. Animal planet is running ghost stories. TruTV used to be CourtTV and now it's running

I've often wondered why they can't just charge for channels we actually use. I mean 110 channels and say for argument you pay $60 it breaks down to like $2 a channel, well what if I only watched 5 channels? Why can't they just give me my 5 channels and charge me accordingly? When I purchase consumer goods I don't pay for things I don't want, I don't pay for services I don't need other than extra cable channels. Hell telephone and electric you only pay what you use. I realize there is a disparity between the

And in my experience, you can get most sporting events streaming as well. At least, most games I'm interested in I can watch on ESPN3 since Comcast is our ISP, and the local games that are blacked out are usually either streaming from a local provider like Raycom Sports or are on (gasp) broadcast TV.

Between Hulu and Netflix I really haven't missed cable other then the occasional sporting event. When are content providers going to get it?

Today I offered to save the other people in my household $40 per month by switching from cable Internet+cable TV to cable Internet+Netflix on my Wii console. They turned it down: one didn't want to give up MSNBC, and the other didn't want to give up ESPN and Versus.

Yup - They're fucked. I haven't had a "real" TV in a couple of years. I do have Netflix (mainly to get DVDs), but mostly I just "find" what I want to watch online and watch when I want and commercial free. Then again, I don't watch TV very often other than The Daily Show and Colbert.

I do that too, and I hope the people who produce TV shows figure out where they are going wrong.

To the TV viewer, the marginal cost of a TV show is $0. People pay for cable/internet service, but other than pay-per-view, they expect to be able to watch any channel at no additional cost. Sure, it costs money to make a show, but the consumer is conditioned for it to be free. It's time for show producers to figure out how to deliver their content for free...

What is a "TV" is going to cause issues. Many TVs, and most of the big screen ones have a microprocessor and running Linux. Are they "computers" or are they TV's? BluRay and DVD players now have Netflix and other services embedded into them, clearly indicating some microprocessor for decode and an OS to manage the HW. Are those "computers" too?

Please define what is a TV for us, and then let us rip your description to shreds.

My new 42" Panasonic Viera has Netflix, Facebook, DLNA, Pandora, and several other apps. It also has an ATSC OTA receiver. What about Sony's Google TV? I hope Sony Entertainment isn't one of the companies bitching about what a TV is.

Here in the UK you only have to pay a TV license if you're watching live TV. iPlayer is free. So, we don't pay a TV license, and any time someone has mentioned a worthwhile TV program to me (which was.. one time this year!) I just looked it up on iPlayer.

It wasn't me who looked into it, it was my flatmate. He has a law degree, works with contracts all day, and an insane level of morality/conscientiousness, so I'd be apt to believe him over you to be honest! I'm quite happy to pay it if we actually need it. iPlayer does not require a TV tuner.

Have a look here [bbc.co.uk]. I wouldn't be surprised if they require you to pay a TV license for iPlayer eventually, but it doesn't seem that it's the case yet.

Well TVs DO have some legal distinctions. They have built in tuners, support V-chip, and CC etc.These are all legal requirements to sell it as a 'TV' in the US. Any other screen without this stuff is a 'monitor'

Many TVs, and most of the big screen ones have a microprocessor and running Linux. Are they "computers" or are they TV's?

A digital TV is a display appliance on which the end user cannot install more applications after buying the device. So a computer isn't a TV (Steam, MSI sideloading, and compiling). Nor is a Nintendo DSi or 3DS (DSi Shop) or an iPad (App Store).

Not an unreasonable definition, but I don't really see its value. Logically, what does one gain by classifying "devices which receive and display moving pictures" into the subsets of computers and TVs? I guess I just fail to see why it matters to regulators, content producers, or anybody else whether the device on which I'm watching this week's episode of House can also run third party software or not.

I know that this all stems from advertisers treating "web TV" differently from "real TV", but that just lin

The only reason to sign up for cable is because it makes the internet price cheaper. Powerusers/etc just stream internet tv back to their regular TV. What's the point of the cable TV plan? To watch more advertisements and not be able to choose when to watch the show you want to watch?

TV execs need to sit in the luxury spa for a day just contemplating what that means.

Too mean it boils down into the following opportunities:1) An advertising outlet is in every persons pocket, computer, cable box. table.2) More information on the locality of viewers.

I would work on inserting local adds based on.. well locality. Of course, global advertisers would still be there.I would also create 5-8 minute shows when 8 second commercial. Get people who are commuting.I would put every god dan piece of T

I still can't believe that DVRs are so widely used. When most people who have a DVR have internet fast enough to stream video, it kind of seems like we are living in a backwards world. Why should I have to remember to record something, worry about overlapping shows, and worry about shows that start early, end late, or start late because of delays (due to sports), when I really should just be able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want. As long as I'm paying for access to it in the first place that is.

So you want to watch next week's shows today? Sorry, they haven't finished post-production yet. You'll have to wait.

Okay... now they're done. Let's have 25 million people separately download them? Waste of internet bandwidth? Yes. Maybe we can use P2P to distribute the bandwidth. No, wait, that uses the same amount of bandwidth, just spread over more uploaders. Hmm...

Maybe we can use a centralized broadcast that can transmit it just once, let anyone who wants it cache it, then use that broadcast's b

I don't think we (the U.S.) have the infrastructure to have everybody doing on-demand all the time yet. Yes, it works when some people do it, but to have all people do it would really overdraw our bandwidth capabilities.

That point rarely gets brought up and I am glad to see someone sees the point of centralized broadcasting.

You are familiar with the concept of digital cable, yes? Short of literal broadcast TV, we are no longer saving bandwidth with multicasting. In short, we might as well have everyone doing a separate download of the program. At least that way, if they want to watch it a second time (or pause, rewind, etc...), it's already at their home. A torrent-type system would be fantastic for the content producers. They could pass the costs of distribution straight over to the "net"... which in this case would be the co

I still can't believe that DVRs are so widely used. When most people who have a DVR have internet fast enough to stream video, it kind of seems like we are living in a backwards world. Why should I have to remember to record something, worry about overlapping shows, and worry about shows that start early, end late, or start late because of delays (due to sports), when I really should just be able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want. As long as I'm paying for access to it in the first place that is.

Don't want to blow your mind, but I still use VCR tapes. It's cheap and easy. Why should I have to worry about bandwidth caps or finding the show on the Internet or the provider not putting up the show for two weeks or only having it online for one week, or having it look not so nice because I only get about 3mb, when I can just record and watch at my leisure?

For anyone vested in study of medieval law and renaissance, the behavior of these 'rights holders' are no different than how the feudal lords behaved at the wake of the renaissance. It doesnt matter where the reasoning for this 'right holding' stems from - when you give control of things/concepts/positions that majority of the population needs to a few, the result always ends up the same, regardless of the justification for it. Intentions dont guarantee a desirable result.

History repeating itself again, however lack of knowledge makes people unable to realize that they are seeing a movie that was made long before and shown repeatedly in theaters worldwide.

When books were sold. Before that is was when paintings were sold and musicians were patronized. Before that it was the joker in the castle and the busker on the streets. People have always paid for culture. The only thing that's changed is the medium.

I'm sorry, when did it become impossible for me to make up my own story and tell it to other people? Our culture hasn't been privatised at all, its just that you want someone else to do the work of creating and presenting.

Yes, you need them. But it's just a higher level need. Just like you need social interaction. If all we needed was food, we'd be on the same level as animals. The ability to consume and contemplate information from outside of your immediate observation is fundamental to being human.

Before that we had Bach. Before that Shakespeare. Before that bards, skalds and other storytellers that told the same stories and musicians that played the same music, developed by previous generations, over and over, because that's what the people wanted, a polished and practiced product not the lackluster crud they could come up with by themselves.

People have always wanted polished entertainment done by professionals. TV just makes the audience big

Have the ability to detect that your program is being streamed to an iPad and offer additional options on commercials. "After the show, tap this button to be taken directly to our website to learn more about this product!" Regular TV commercials are passive, but interactive advertising gives you direct feedback into the efficacy of the advertising campaign. Make it easy and seamless and legitimate looking, and bored people will happily click away.

They should just add a over-the-air TV receiver to the next version, then it would really be just like a TV. Japanese mobile phones have had that for years, although they tend to be limited to the lower quality 1seg broadcasts. 1seg reduces resolution and frame rate but increases reception so is ideal for portable devices, so for example most sat-nav / in-car entertainment systems include it now. IIRC Brazil also uses it.

maybe the niche can be avoided if the tablets get big enough to view from a greater distance. Of course, then you wouldnt necessarily want the multi-touch features, maybe just a magic stick that could remotely direct you through options.

Before I argue whether iPad is a TV, first tell me why my iPhone ISN'T? I recorded Butler v. UConn on my ATT UVerse so my wife would watch it on the iPad in the morning. Couldn't. Make that, 'was not allowed'. But I COULD have watched it on my iPhone. What is the difference between iPad and iPhone?

I never had an iPad in my hands so I don't know - I just wonder, how comfortable is it for producing content (vs consuming it)?Which is the primary difference between TV (consume) and the modern media (participate).

I mean, I have Opera Mini for my Android phone. It provides superior browsing experience. It's fast, pages load fast, picking links is easy, windows switching is a breeze. But it absolutely sucks when it comes to creating content. Writing posts is difficult. Native language characters are not ava

I think it was around that time, as stereo sets began moving from the lab to the living room, that the head of the musicians union threw down the gauntlet, demanding double the pay for new recording session, reasoning that each loudspeaker was a separate performance deserving of a separate fee. He wouldn't budge either, until a clever record company exec explained that listeners would want new stereo versions of their mono favorites, leading to a huge increase in session work and paychecks to match for unio

Nice to see some cable companies waking up. It would be nice to see the TV channels wake up as well. Here's a hint: If your cable company has an app that lets you watch live TV in your house only, on an iPad or iPhone, you are PRESERVING your status quo. It's an INCENTIVE to me to NOT ditch cable. To KEEP my satellite. To CONTINUE paying $100 a month. Thanks to AirPlay, I can beam it right back onto my TV, and not worry about that one room that doesn't have wiring for satellite or a receiver sitting inside

As some other posters mentioned, I too cut the satellite tv and went with an OTA antenna, Dlink Boxee, and WD TV Live. I haven't looked back and neither has the family. I even added Playon for good measure to stream anything neither device has. I have Hulu Plus and Netflix subscriptions for TV and movies. Overall, for a one time cost of 280 dollars, and monthly recurring costs of 17 dollars, I replaced my 80 dollars a month TV with a much better option. The Cable/Satellite companies really don't get it. The

"The enthusiasm of our customers and the programming partners who have embraced the app, rather than those who are solely focused on finding additional ways to reach into wallets of their own viewers, has convinced us more than ever that we are on the right path." --Time-Warner Cable

Indeed - having a programmer and a cable provider reach into your wallet at the same time would be really uncomfortable.

"Throwing the gauntlet" worked so well for the music industry. They probably could have made so much more money, much more easily if they had embraced digital media from the onset.Television needs to get on board with the digital age. If they fight it they are just going to fall behind as users find better alternatives to traditionally TV.Perhaps it's time to offer ala-carte channel selection. Why should I have to buy a package from my cable company when I can just find what I want online.The harder they fight it, the faster they will lose viewers. Especially now that TVs have Youtube and Hulu apps embedded, making it much easier for the average user to watch online content.

Amongst this community in particular, it often seems like the RIAA are doing quite well making up losses by suing grandmothers and school children, but in reality they've already lost. It really hits you when the measure of Rebecca Black [youtube.com]'s success is that she's climbing the iTunes charts instead of Billboard. The RIAA isn't going the way of the dinosaurs, they're already gone.

That's true. It's might also be in their interest to allow ala-carte pricing. But it is their content, and they can distribute it how they choose. Since they also distribute it on the Internet (barring any illegal content providers) they can pretty much offer it however they want on any medium.The only way for them to fight illegal downloaders it to make legitimate downloads/streaming as easy or easier than illegal downloads. That would mean no DRM (or a least a good implementation of it) in a cross pla

Yeah. It's funny to think that they're OK with data coming in over TCP/IP if it goes to a set-top box provided by the cable provider. Which then goes out, potentially, over HDMI. Now they're (perpetually) developing wireless HDMI. And this would presumably be ok. Yet, bringing it into a box provided by the cable company, then streaming it out over 802.11 isn't ok. Go figure.

This reminds me a bit of when I put up my own web page in 1996. I actually sent emails to some companies asking if I could put

GarageBand for iPad is pretty sweet and I use it to make music, not all of which sucks. Pages is pretty decent for putting together a letter or flyer, it's not as nice as Pages for Mac but you really could layout just about anything in it. I can't vouch for Keynote or Numbers because I haven't bought them for iPad but they're probably at least as nice as their Mac counterparts. MS Office app knock-offs abound, so many I haven't even bought one. For non-Apple apps you have Freeform which I like better than I

This is the conventional wisdom. It's not really true, though-- the production apps just have to catch up to the interaction metaphors. There are already people saying the new iMovie feels like what iMovie on the desktop was supposed to be. And Adobe seems to think Photoshop is going to be big on the iPad. Garageband is already augmenting the way some musicians work. While no one I know is coding directly on an iPad, it's certainly more than "consumption". I'd say it's wonderful for "augmented product

You mean like this? http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/imovie.html

I just attended a concert and a workshop where one of the performers was using two iPads as control surfaces for electro-acoustic music. To me, the iPad (currently) is more like "Web 1.0", where, for most people, it was a medium focused on consuming. If you don't think Apple is going to make this work in the consumer space, and guarantee its success, you don't know Apple.

If you don't think Apple is going to make this work in the consumer space, and guarantee its success, you don't know Apple.

What? Is Steve Jobs god now? The iPod, iPhone and iPad have been pretty successful, but Apple have had plenty of misses over the years too. It just so happens that in arenas like MP3 players, phones and tablet computers, and online music stores, the options really sucked before Apple came along.

I was actually considering getting a Xoom for video editing. I can imagine a touch interface working really nicely for that. I know I'd much rather have 1GB of RAM than 512MB in that scenario.

No, he isn't God, but they've certainly got enough money to throw at this to make it stick. I would say they're off to a pretty good start too, wouldn't you? The key to establishing a platform is to make sure enough people buy it to make it self-sustainable. They now have millions of iOS devices out in the wild, so that keeps demand up.Apple's misses have been somewhat minimized over the last few years. The last big "miss" they had was the G4 cube, and I wouldn't even really call that a miss -- just a bad c

I was actually considering getting a Xoom for video editing. I can imagine a touch interface working really nicely for that. I know I'd much rather have 1GB of RAM than 512MB in that scenario.

Why, exactly? Even assuming all other things remaining equal (and things definitely aren't equal), there's no reason to assume 1GB of RAM is going to be appreciably better than 512MB of RAM. Once you have sufficient memory (and 512MB is more than enough for HD video editing), the software differences become ultimately important.

-reduce the number of ads by an order of magnitude and increase the relevance of the remaining by the same factor. Some weekend movies have 8 minute commercial breaks for Christ sake! No wonder we hate them so much-allow me to watch the content whenever I want, wherever I want. None of this 5 most recent episodes crap. None of this web only, no mobile viewing either.-make the fee 10x less than cable, the fees for which are out of control.

Regarding reducing the number of ads, maybe there's a case for charging a premium for a single two-minute ad that has a two-minute ad break all to itself. Think of the impact that ad could have, as opposed to a 5 minute break with 10 x 30 second ads competing for your attention.

The days of broadcast TV served at the expense of commercial breaks are over. I strongly dislike commercials and will avoid listening to/watching them, sometimes at extreme costs.

In October last year I got rid of the cable TV, kept the cable internet feed, and bought myself a Roku player. I rarely watch commercials anymore. I choose what I want to watch, and I can even stream stuff I've digitized and stored on disk on other machines on my network. And I'm paying far less, by orders of magnitude, for the couple subscriptions that I watch on the Roku as compared to cable TV.

How can broadcast/cable TV compete with this?

Where TV can compete is with live showing of programs. I've found that if you are interested in watching sports the best option is through actual TV / cable. You get much better picture and if you hate commercials just start watching it 30 min to an hour after start and just skip through the commercials with a dvr. Almost all other types of TV shows / programs are just about as good without paying for TV. Another aspect that has happened is twitter commentary on live shows when the shows are going on. This also gives a good reason to watch live shows or first shown shows. These are good ways to get people back to watching actual TV rather than after the fact recorded TV. I'm not someone who watches any of the above, but I can see the appeal of it.

They won't do it, but one way they could, would be to try to serve their customers while also using their superior technology. Broadcast is just plain more efficient than transmitting each identical packet n times where n is the number of users. More efficient means lower cost -- a competitive advantage.

In theory they could offer you everything you are getting right now, but either cheaper or better. If you're streaming for free, they could stream to you at a h